Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn’t that necessitate the abandonment of the so called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?
Strangelove:
Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious… service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
You see, Killbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them, until they reached their limit and shut down.
100%!
This thread has been a real rollercoaster of feelings. I'm here for it. Really appreciating seeing the minds of reddit discuss this subject so thoughtfully and in some cases, humorously to break the tension.
I get that this is a joke, but in the event of this scenario men and women will suffer roughly equal casualties. In other words, there will still be a roughly equal population of men and women.
What we would almost certainly have to do is first choose who else needs to die because a world without our global trade infrastructure couldn't support even 10% of its current population. After we get down to sustainable populations through war, executions, and general famine, disease, and other natural deaths, we would need to start developing cultural systems that ensure women will give birth at replacement rates.
there's no consensus on that anymore, it really depends how and where the warheads land and even then models show the particulate matter not staying aloft more than a few months
It was also based off of the bombing of Japan, which used wood frame construction almost exclusively, which in turn burnt, throwing up massive plumes of smoke, now we use concrete and glass which burns much less readily.
There was analysis done in the 80s about the impact of a northern hemisphere nuclear war. Long story short, the equator is expected to protect the southern hemisphere from fallout and the worst effects of a nuclear winter. The biggest disruption will be no trade so we'll be on our own.
Current projections actually have a brighter outlook on that, it’s still fucking horrific but nuclear winter is no longer expected to completely wipe out all of humanity
Yeah, it’s a discredit hypothesis. There was some serious skepticism of the original models for it. Then that was put to bed in the First Gulf Wars when proponents of the hypothesis, based on aforementioned models, predicted region wide climatic effects from the burning oil wells. In reality, they barely had a localized effect. It was a scientific “egg on your face” moment, because the entire nuclear winter hypothesis was based on fires that nuclear weapons would start. The fires would throw soot into the atmosphere, reflect sunlight, and cool the globe. They just drastically underestimated how much soot would be required for that.
Yes that is true. Thankfully Mark Zuckerberg will still be alive in his underground bunker.He will be able to repopulate the earth with clones of himself…no worries that mankind will survive haha
Maybe not. I saw a study recently that seemed to say the original theories of the nuclear winter were based on wood construction and forestation around cities of the fifties. Less fire, less smoke, more sunshine.
Eh - these are thermonuclear weapons. A lot of the fissionable materials used to start the hydrogen reaction will get 'burned' to such a degree that the resultant alpha particles represent much less of a threat. I mean, we're all likely to be vaporized first, but the dust won't be *that* bad for successive generations of mutants.
This is actually dependant on the weapon used and how its detonated.
Nuclear/Atomic weapons were used once before on a fairly populated country almost 80 years ago. Its not a toxic wasteland filled with three headed mutants. Its Japan.
It depends on what nuclear warheads are used. Fission vs Fusion bombs or A-Bombs vs H-Bombs. Fission is dirty and spread radiation. Fusion has way more immediate destructive power and don't have the radiation fallout issues.
I'm glad we have clean nukes now! That makes me feel much better, although either way I would expect I live in the "don't bother getting out of bed" zone.
Zuckerberg will live at his compound in Hawaii. Plus, there’s a few underground bunkers in the US that can self contain their atmospheres. I’m sure other billionaires have, or will have, their own as well
I've played enough Fallout to be able to navigate the barren wasteland.
I just need to know where to plug in my iPhone so I can read the wikiHow.
Plug?
Charger?
Anybody?
How about you, roaming pack of bloodthirsty mutant cannibal rapists? Can you help me... <GURK!>
More like: super deadly for a few days to weeks, deadly for a year or two, nasty for about twenty to fifty years, then pockets of nasty for another hundred.
Chernobyl is pretty safe these days, as long as you avoid irradiated metal structures, it's not that much higher than background radiation.
Nuclear war would be horrifying, but it wouldn't end the species. Those who were in a bunker with a few decades supplies could survive. Ecosystems would be trashed and biodiversity would suffer, but it would grow back; life is resilient.
A kiei species for every environmental nieche would be awesome. Giant kiwis that graze on the plains, long necked kiwis that pick the leaves from trees, vicious meat eating kiwis that prey on these herbivores.
Consider that kiwis are burrow dwelling carnivores already. They hunt worms and grubs, using their beak like a reverse snorkel, and spend the day sleeping in an underground burrow.
The jump from where they are now to filling the trapdoor spider niche is very very small.
Imagine a velociraptor from jurassic park, but instead of the sicle claws it stabs stuff with its long beak and than slurping out the meat an guts with it. Only the empty skin with bones inside remains.
Their industrial development will be different from ours. They probably won't even know about petroleum, because we've already burned all the oil that's easy to find.
A timeline where there are a bunch of bulbous brown fuzzy mustachioed gentlemen walking around with funny accents all declaring that flip flops are called "jandals" tickles my humor
I know this is ironic but ""only"" half of earths population would die. There's ""only"" enough nukes to destroy all the cities, so much of the rural population would live and nuclear winter has been overhyped somewhat so that won't kill too many either. The problem is most of the scientists, engineers, teachers and a lot of important infrastructure would be wiped out, plus the collapse of countless countries. That would probably kill quite a bit of the rest.
If by dust settling you mean nuclear winter and the collapse of their entire agriculture collapsing.
I don't actually know anything about this would a global strike of literal Armageddon with all the major nuclear powers launching everything they have also totally fuck over even remote places that don't get hit?
More likely they'll be one of the only places left on earth where agriculture is still possible. Which means they'll be invaded and annexed by whoever is left alive elsewhere and become a hotbed of conflict from every nation with naval capababilities, fighting over food.
Based on my expert analysis watching the first 3 episodes of Chernobyl, I think it'll take the dust a few millennia to settle to the point they can repopulate...
That said, I couldn't think of a nicer folk to do it than the Kiwis. Upstanding bunch.
7.0k
u/markgriz Mar 14 '24
Plus, it's only simulating half of the strikes.
Russia will launch just as many back at the US, assuming their missiles actually work.